FAISAL vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 428 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FAISAL VS STATE Ss. 324, 353, 337-F(iii) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant in the execution of their duty, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No consistency in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party, due to which the complainant/Police Constable got injured, whereas his companion escaped unhurt---Investigating Officer of the case stated that accused were arrested by local police in case FIR No. 780 dated 16.5.2019 under Ss. 394, 324, 427 & 34 P.P.C/15-aa and were confined in Central Jail, therefore, vide application, he applied for zamima bay which was issued accordingly---Investigating Officer formally arrested the accused and prepared their card of arrest and vide recovery memos took into possession their blood stained clothes---Said two recovery memos were available on record bearing the date of its preparation as 24.5.2019 showing recovery of blood stained clothes of co-accused consisting of qamees shalwar which bore two bullet cut marks---Contents of those recovery memos showed that the accused were taken out from Central Jail through zamima bay and on search of the accused, both the accused were having shopping bags containing their blood stained clothes---It was not appealable to a prudent mind that why their clothes were not taken into possession when they were arrested on 17.5.2019 in Case FIR No.781 under S.15-aa and also in case FIR 780 dated 16.5.2019 under Ss. 394, 324, 427 & 34 P.P.C/15-aa by the police---Notable that no injury sheets of the injured co-accused were prepared by the police after their arrest neither they were medically examined---Investigation Officer in his cross examination admitted that he had not obtained medical examination report of injured accused---Further stated that he had produced the accused facing trial at the time of obtaining their custody who were found fit---Thus the statements of witnesses were not consistent on the point of the two accused being injured which had created dent in the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

FAISAL vs STATE Ss — 2026 YLR 428 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR